|
Would they really care that much what year it was?
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 14:15 |
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Would they really care that much what year it was? They had loans and basic finance, but did they have multi-year loans? They must have done, and trade deals etc, wonder how much difficult it is counting years out like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Would they really care that much what year it was? ...yes? You know as well as I do that Romans weren't just cavemen with columns, which is the only way I can really interpret the question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
I mean outside Rome and other big cities...farmers and such would probably just care about the seasons?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:I mean outside Rome and other big cities...farmers and such would probably just care about the seasons? Well I'm sure they'd also care about when workmen were supposed to pick up their goods, and what the grain prices were expected to be, and all the other elements of an interconnected agricultural civilization. I'm sure there were some folks who couldn't care less about what the date is, but there are those people in modern America as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:I mean outside Rome and other big cities...farmers and such would probably just care about the seasons? You don't think they'd care about, like, how old their girlfriends are, or "when was that horrible flood?", or "my grandpa went to the Secular Games in..." &c.?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
Romans also counted years like we do. It was called ab urbe condita as compared to our anno domini.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
Regrading the Babylonian captivity- why? What motivated ancient kingdoms and empires to transport thousands of captives miles and miles away instead of just killing them? I could understand it if they were enslaved, but the fact that the Jews were allowed to hold onto their shared identity and culture during their captivity, and eventually released makes it seem like they were held in higher regard than slaves. Was transportation of captives common in this era?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 03:00
|
|
|
Groups were often moved around so they couldn't organize resistance. I'm not aware of non-Biblical records of the Babylon Captivity so it's safe to assume the story we know is inaccurate. I think it's generally accepted there were Jews in Babylon against their will (given the decree of Cyrus, though there's debate about that too) but the precise number and nature is unknown. They were released by a conqueror, remember. They weren't released by the Babylonians. But yeah resettlement policies were common. And when large populations of slaves were taken, they typically were divided up. Gallic slaves from Caesar's conquest went across the entire empire, partly because there were so drat many of them, but also because keeping them far away from Gaul reduced the chances they'd cause trouble. As for maintaining culture, I mean you could try to stamp it out but it's likely to remain. It's just the way that kind of thing works if multiple people from the same culture are together.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
You should also consider the possibility that the Jews taken to Babylon could've been counted in dozens or at best hundreds, rather than thousands. Holding the aristocracy of an unruly country captive can be a sensible policy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:Regrading the Babylonian captivity- why? What motivated ancient kingdoms and empires to transport thousands of captives miles and miles away instead of just killing them? I could understand it if they were enslaved, but the fact that the Jews were allowed to hold onto their shared identity and culture during their captivity, and eventually released makes it seem like they were held in higher regard than slaves. The Assyrians in particular moved large populations around in order to break their resistance and pacify them. This was a step up from the outright slaughter of previous empires, as they recognized that they still needed people working the land and paying taxes, so they forcibly moved people from their homeland to elsewhere in the Empire, leaving them as strangers in unfamiliar lands. This is what happened to the nine northern tribes after 721 BC. The people moved in to replace them are of unknown origin. They tried to adapt to the local customs and religion, but the southern Hebrews never accepted them - they became the hated Samaritans of the New Testament. There was a small region of the north that Solomon deeded over to Tyre in repayment for work done on the construction of the temple in Jerusalem. This area was called Galilee (Aramaic for "the area"), and retained their cultural ties to the rest of the Hebrew nation - they just paid taxes to Tyre, instead of Jerusalem. Sennacherib left them alone when he conquered Samaria, which is why there remained an original population of Jews in Galilee after the Assyrians deported the bulk of the rest of the population of the north. The Babylonians, however, were not really interested in mass resettlements like the Assyrians. A Ras Het suggested, it was more like taking hostage the upper crust of society, leaving the burned out city of Jerusalem to the peasants. It's not clear just how many left, or if the Biblical record is accurate on how many returned. We do know that the Biblical version of the Edict of Cyrus is not accurate, as the actual edict has been found (I saw it myself at the British Museum). This is it:  In it, Cyrus makes a general declaration that all the people held captive by the Babylonians were free to return to their homelands and rebuild their cities and their temples to their gods. The Hebrews wrote it up as if it only applied to them, but in fact it applied to anybody and everybody. Religious tolerance was a big part of Zoroastrianism, and Cyrus took great pride in allowing them to worship their ancestral gods again. This also had the effect of creating an indebtedness to the Persian empire, leading to less internal dissention than they might have had otherwise. The Hebrews that returned were generally good little boys and girls, living peacefully in the province of Transjordan of the Persian empire for the next 150 years or so - until Alexander came along and blew everything up. Deteriorata fucked around with this message at 05:24 on Mar 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
Justinian II was pretty fond of moving large groups of people around before his nose got cut off and he went nuts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 05:10
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:You should also consider the possibility that the Jews taken to Babylon could've been counted in dozens or at best hundreds, rather than thousands. Holding the aristocracy of an unruly country captive can be a sensible policy. The Biblical account itself is to some extent internally inconsistent as to whether the Babylonians removed the aristocracy/officials, the population of Jerusalem or the whole population of the kingdom of Judah. Generally speaking, The Bible as a historical source is as problematic as hell. This is no exception.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
Romans captured at Carrhae were sent to the eastern edge of the Parthian Empire at Merv.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
Happy Ides of March, in Asia anyway.  Let us celebrate by posting your favorite classical assassinations. I will post mine later.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 06:12
|
|
|
General Panic posted:The Biblical account itself is to some extent internally inconsistent as to whether the Babylonians removed the aristocracy/officials, the population of Jerusalem or the whole population of the kingdom of Judah. Generally speaking, The Bible as a historical source is as problematic as hell. This is no exception. On the other hand, I know I sure as hell would kill for a historical source like the Bible in areas like Bactria.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 06:49
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Happy Ides of March, in Asia anyway. The Greek mercenary commanders who followed Cyrus. Because really how didn't they see that coming.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 07:08
|
|
|
The assassination of Philip II of Macedon is a good one. He was entering a theater unaccompanied by his bodyguards (to show off how safe he was to visiting diplomats), when one of his bodyguards accosted him from the crowd and stabbed him to death. The reasons for the hit are unknown - a popular ancient story is that the bodyguard was Philip's lover and Philip had publicly spurned him for another man.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 08:07
|
|
|
Alcibiades went out with style. While he was sleeping, his house was surrounded and set on fire, and so he supposedly charged the assassins with a dagger, wearing only a bed sheet. Naturally, they shot him down with arrows as he left the building, but still, it was a good try. Of course, nobody seems to mention what happened to his mistress... maybe she was the real target? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
One near assassination I like is the almost killing of Sulpicanus by the Praetorian Guard.quote:Meanwhile Didius Julianus, at once an insatiate money-getter and a wanton spendthrift, who was always eager for revolution and hence had been exiled by Commodus to his native city of Mediolanum, now, when he heard of the death of Pertinax, hastily made his way to the camp, and, standing at the gates of the enclosure, made bids to the soldiers for the rule over the Romans. Then ensued a most disgraceful business and one unworthy of Rome. 3 For, just as if it had been in some market or auction-room, both the City and its entire empire were auctioned off. The sellers were the ones who had slain their emperor, and the would-be buyers were Sulpicianus and Julianus, who vied to outbid each other, one from the inside, the other from the outside. 4 They gradually raised their bids up to twenty thousand sesterces per soldier. Some of the soldiers would carry word to Julianus, "Sulpicianus offers so much; how much more do you make it?" And to Sulpicianus in turn, "Julianus promises so much; how much do you raise him?" 5 Sulpicianus would have won the day, being inside and being prefect of the city and also the first to name the figure twenty thousand, had not Julianus raised his bid no longer by a small amount but by five thousand at one time, both shouting it in a loud voice and also indicating p145the amount with his fingers. So the soldiers, captivated by this excessive bid and at the same time fearing that Sulpicianus might avenge Pertinax (an idea that Julianus put into their heads), received Julianus inside and declared him emperor. Julianus then pardoned Sulpicanus, so he survived long enough to be beheaded by Septimius Severus instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 16:16
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I will post mine later.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
physeter posted:You're going to do Nero and his mom, aren't you? Nothing beats Juleo-Claudian Throw Momma from the Train. I won't steal your thunder. Nope. Post away!
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
Ok, so cribbed from Tacitus, and thus to be taken with many grains of salt, here's the story. Nero was banging his mom, Agrippina. That's its own story. But Nero then decides she needs to die, but she was fairly popular with people. So at first he tried poison. But the old bat was fond of taking the old Mithradatic antivenom treatment, and she didn't die. Then, he sent a hit squad out but apparently they missed her, given that she was pretty elusive, and according to Tacitus, "familiar with crime". Then Nero had had enough. He designed and had built a special trireme that was loaded with a mechanical device that was intended to catapult the unsuspecting matron into the sea! A grand conspiracy was hatched, alibis established, and Nero sent momma on a cruise. Unfortunately for Nero, the contraption misfired and wrecked the boat in a way that made it apparent something very suspicious had been going on. As the trireme limped to shore, the nearby people all ran out in an attempt to help the Empress. Realizing the gig was up, the captain and crew finally just gave up and clubbed her to death in full view of everyone. And that was the end of that particular Agrippina.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
It's almost surely not true, but, one of the stores for Valerian is the molten gold being poured down his throat. In the 0.2% it is true, that's a pretty epic/terrible way to be killed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 21:28
|
|
|
The accounts of Agrippina's death are even better than that: Nero's mom, though apparently an intelligent matron who chose good advisors for the young man, was unfortunately a total smother mother: she discouraged his art, forced advisors on him that he did not like, and probably most importantly hated Nero's girlfriend, a freedwoman. Apparently she had the charming habit of referring to her in front of others as "my daughter, the slave." Nero's love life was full of truly Springer-esque anecdotes, but I digress. Whatever the reason, Nero convinced his mother to go on that fateful ship. Us moderns know the terror that the words "Italian cruise line" should strike into one's heart, but at that time they were still unaware of the dubious tradition they were starting. In the middle of the water, the ship fell apart. Agrippina may not yet have known for sure that her son was behind it, hanging for life on a splinter of the deck, until her attendant started shouting for help, frantically claiming to be Agrippina herself. She got an oar sandwich from her 'rescuers' as a reply. Agrippina somehow managed to swim to shore despite an injury from the boat collapse. She was recovering in her villa as she was invited to dinner with the emperor as if nothing were amiss. He said all the pleasantries and appeared for all accounts the loving son, but it was a poor facade at best. Afterwards she went to her quarters, and to no one's surprise, guards came after her during the night. Her last actions, according to Cassius Dio, was to bear her belly to the attackers, daring them to smite the womb that bore such a son.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
Does anyone have any great ancient pope stories?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
Well, I remember of Formosus, whose corpse was put on trial after he had died. That's always a bit weird.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
The emperor Carus was assassinated by lightning.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
Zeus has spoken. Any dissenters?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
Troubadour posted:Us moderns know the terror that the words "Italian cruise line" should strike into one's heart, but at that time they were still unaware of the dubious tradition they were starting. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 00:25
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Well, I remember of Formosus, whose corpse was put on trial after he had died. That's always a bit weird. Really? Why would they do that? Was the guy terribly unpopular or something? Also, a bit off-topic, your avatar reminded me of something, google "Flora Sandes" and prepare for 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
Knockknees posted:Does anyone have any great ancient pope stories?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
My favorite assassination was that of Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, the fifth King of Rome. As the story goes, the sons of his predecessor wanted the throne for themselves, so they hatched a plot to kill him and take the kingdom. They managed to get in one good club strike before they were stopped by the guards, but couldn't confirm the King's death. Tarquinius' queen, Tanaquil, rushed to his body, found him dead, but in order to avoid the chaos of such a loss proclaimed to the people that it was only a superficial wound and that the King would be up and about soon. Thinking quickly, she sent for the King's adopted son, Servius Tullius and had him serve as a regent while Tarquinius ostensibly recovered from his injury. Tullius went along with the act, going so far as to withhold judgment on some decisions by saying that he needed to consult with his father first. After Tullius had been "reigning" for some time, it was announced that Tarquinius had died peacefully. Tullius was elected to the Kingship by the Senate, the transition of power was smooth, and as the sixth King of Rome he was one of its greatest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
my dad posted:Really? Why would they do that? Was the guy terribly unpopular or something?  Wikipedia posted:The Cadaver Synod (also called the Cadaver Trial or, in Latin, the Synodus Horrenda) is the name commonly given to the posthumous ecclesiastical trial of Catholic Pope Formosus, held in the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome during January of 897. The trial was conducted by Formosus's successor, Pope Stephen (VI) VII. Stephen accused Formosus of perjury and of having acceded to the papacy illegally. At the end of the trial, Formosus was pronounced guilty and his papacy retroactively declared null. The Cadaver Synod is remembered as one of the most bizarre episodes in the history of the medieval papacy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 10:58
|
|
|
Comrade Koba posted:The Cadaver Synod Thanks. Aftermath posted:The macabre spectacle turned public opinion in Rome against Stephen. Rumors circulated that Formosus' body, after washing up on the banks of the Tiber, had begun to perform miracles. A public uprising led to Stephen being deposed and imprisoned. While in prison, in July or August 897, he was strangled.  , the backfire was spectacular.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
I suppose there's no such thing as bilingualism or multilingualism in Ancient Greece? For libraries in Ancient Rome, how does it work? Could normal people (literate ones, at least) borrow some books from those libraries? If yes, are there any overdue fees? How do they store their books?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 14:36
|
|
|
Sure there was. Speaking multiple languages seems to have been reasonably common in the ancient world. Greeks were dicks but at the least merchants would need to be realistic about it. I don't know what level of fluency we'd be talking about. There were public libraries, but as far as I know we have no detailed records about how they worked. Either you could borrow books or you could go in to read them, I'd suspect the latter. I think they were stored in little cubbies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 14:39
|
|
|
toanoradian posted:I suppose there's no such thing as bilingualism or multilingualism in Ancient Greece? I suppose multilingualism varied by profession. Farmers and townsmen who rarely traveled 20 miles beyond where they were born could get by with one, but merchants and traders would have to be fluent in more than one language. There were regular trade routes cris-crossing the Mediterranean, Egypt to Phoenicia to Greece to Italy and thousands of harbors in between. Before Alexander, Aramaic was the lingua franca in the Eastern Med, while after him Greek took its place. So a businessman needed to be able to speak his local language, as well as at least the common business language. Knowing multiple languages made it easier to negotiate deals with more people, so the really big dealers would know many. There was also the diplomatic corps. International relations required many interpreters and document translators, just as now. Deteriorata fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Mar 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 15:08
|
|
|
Soldiers were probably multilingual as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 15:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 14:15 |
|
|
Also the number of languages (written or not) would have been tremendous compared to now. Of course, they probably all died without a trace, but it would have been a cool time to study languages.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 15:15
|
|
